Business Ethics
MSB 287
King’s College, Fall 2014
Dr. Bernard G. Prusak
Office: McGowan 203
Office hours: MWF 11-12, MW 1-2, and by appointment
bernardprusak@kings.edu
Course description
Examination of the vocation and moral context of business; critical reflection, through
engagement with the philosophical and Catholic traditions, on how to make a living and
live well; and extended consideration of issues and problems that arise in contemporary
business settings. Prerequisite: Core 280.
Course objectives
By the end of this course, students should have:
developed familiarity with several theories of morality;
become more proficient at recognizing, formulating, and addressing moral
problems in the business context;
developed a well-considered position on the purpose of business within society;
and
begun to develop an answer, for themselves, of what moral and spiritual values
they want to live out in making a living.
McGowan School of Business Mission Statement
This course directly serves the mission of the McGowan School of Business. To
quote (emphasis added):
The William G. McGowan School of Business seeks to develop in its
students the professional knowledge and skills needed to function successfully in
the dynamic environments of business with a commitment to exercising their
professional responsibilities in an ethical and socially responsible manner in a
global marketplace.
Learning Goals
The delivery of our business education program is guided by the following
learning outcomes:
1
A student graduating from the William G. McGowan School of Business
should be an effective communicator.
To this end, in this course, students will submit written work (including memos) and
make oral presentations.
A student graduating from the William G. McGowan School of Business
should possess information literacy.
To this end, in this course, students will identify, locate, and evaluate resources needed
for required written work.
A student graduating from the William G. McGowan School of Business
should be ethically and socially responsible.
To this end, in this course, students will develop familiarity with several theories of
morality; become more proficient at recognizing, formulating, and addressing moral
problems in the business context; develop a well-considered position on the purpose of
business within society; and begin to develop an answer, for themselves, of what moral
and spiritual values they want to live out in making a living.
A student graduating from the William G. McGowan School of Business
should be professionally knowledgeable.
To this end, in this course, students will examine case studies and learn best practices in
today’s business world.
The more nuts-and-bolts goals of this course are to help you develop skills that
will serve you both in college and in your subsequent careers.
Goal
Read and think
critically:
Write well:
Communicate
effectively orally:
Master cooperative learning
skills:
Analyze and bring critical understanding to
difficult moral theories, grapple with cases
exemplifying moral problems
Write clearly and persuasively, supporting
your positions with argumentation and
evidence
Articulate your own views based on your
reading and in response to the contributions of
other students
Work with and learn from other members of
the class in a climate of mutual respect and
support
Assessment, etc.
Attendance/participation
2
Method of assessment
Participation in class discussion,
exams, papers
Papers, co-curricular event report,
supplementary reading reports
Participation in class discussion
Participation in class discussion,
group projects
Attendance/participation will be worth 15 percent of the final grade. Please note
that attendance is expected at all meetings, with due allowance for reasonable excuses.
Each class that you miss will result in your losing 1/3rd point. Also please note that, per
College policy, excessive absences must be reported to the Office of Student Success and
Retention.
The attendance/participation grade will be determined using the following rubrics.
Class participation deserving of an A grade (90-100) will be strong in most categories;
participation that is strong in some categories but needs development in others will
receive a B (80-90); a grade of C (70-80) reflects a need for development in most
categories; D work (65-69) is unsatisfactory in several categories; and F work,
unsatisfactory in nearly all.
Listening
Preparation
Quality of
contributions
Impact on
seminar
Frequency of
participation
Strong work
Actively and respectfully
listens to peers and
instructor
Arrives fully prepared with
all assignments completed,
and notes on reading,
observations, questions
Comments are relevant and
reflect understanding of:
assigned text(s); previous
remarks of other students;
and insights about assigned
material
Comments frequently help
move seminar conversation
forward
Actively participates at
appropriate times
Needs development
Sometimes displays lack
of interest in comments of
others
Sometimes arrives
unprepared or with only
superficial preparation
Unsatisfactory
Projects lack of interest or
disrespect for others
Comments sometimes
irrelevant, betray lack of
preparation, or indicate
lack of attention to
previous remarks of other
students
Comments sometimes
advance the conversation,
but sometimes do little to
move it forward
Sometimes participates but
other times is “tuned out”
Comments reflect little
understanding of either the
assignment or previous
remarks in seminar
Exhibits little evidence of
having read or thought
about assigned material
Comments do not advance
the conversation or are
actively harmful to it
Seldom participates and is
generally not engaged
Writing assignments
You will be required to write two papers, each worth 20 percent of the final grade.
The papers will be graded using the following rubrics. An A-level paper will be strong in
most categories; B papers will be strong in some but need development in others; C
papers need significant development; D papers are unsatisfactory in most categories.
Audience
Strong work
Assumes audience is
student who has
familiarity with the text in
question but could use still
reminding; paper uses
evidence to make points
rather than to summarize
Needs development
Spends inappropriate
amount of time merely
summarizing text or
repeating material covered
in class, or does not provide
sufficient
background/assumes too
much knowledge of the text
3
Unsatisfactory
Shows little evidence of
having read the text; ideas
mostly taken from class
notes or class discussion
and not developed further
Thesis
Introductory
paragraph(s)
Paragraphs in
body of paper
Argument
Organization
Use of Evidence
Conclusion
Mechanics
Single clear thesis ( =
answer to the question,
What is this paper about?)
that would be interesting
to someone who had
already studied the text
Avoids inflated
generalizations and
gratuitous praise; “hooks”
the reader; introduces
clear thesis; briefly
explains how the paper
will proceed
Each paragraph does one
and only one bit of work
toward the paper’s goal
and is supported by
evidence and
argumentation
All necessary points in
proving or developing
thesis are made; paper
does not assume reader
agrees with author but
shows the reader why he
or she should agree
Argument intelligently
ordered and easy to
follow, reflected in order
of points and paragraphs
Draws relevant evidence
from close reading of a
variety of passages; all
quotations correctly cited
using MLA or Chicago
format
Brings the paper full
circle, ties all loose ends
together; makes a new
point that builds on all
preceding points, so
reaches a summit rather
than providing a mere
summary
Nearly flawless grammar,
spelling, and word choice;
sentences read smoothly
and are clear without
being wordy
Thesis is either somewhat
unclear or all too obvious to
most thoughtful readers
No clear thesis, or
multiple theses
Extraneous generalization;
connection to thesis not
entirely clear; thesis
statement not clear; lacks
compelling “hook,” or
statement of how the paper
will proceed
Some paragraphs are “baggy
monsters,” trying to do all
too much; or some do not
support thesis, or are not
supported by evidence
No clear thesis statement
or sense of where the
paper is going
Some missteps are made in
proving or developing
thesis; argument only
compelling to someone who
already agrees; only tells the
reader that such-and-such is
the case instead of showing
the reader
Logical flow of argument
needs improvement by
reordering some points
and/or paragraphs
Evidence drawn from only
one or two passages in text;
some evidence does not
support points made;
citations present but not in
correct format
Merely summarizes
everything that has been said
so far, and/or feels abrupt or
forced
Grammar, spelling, word
choice, sentence structure
and word economy need
attention
Little relationship between
paragraphs and thesis,
little to no evidence
mustered, paragraphs do
not work toward the
paper’s goal
Essay does not break any
ground or develop a case
Material is disorganized
with no clear logical
connection between points
and/or paragraphs
Little evidence used; does
not support points made;
material quoted without
citation
Simply recycles the
introductory paragraph
Serious problems with
grammar, spelling, word
choice, sentence structure
and/or word economy
A punitive grade of F will be given to work found to have been plagiarized.
Please discuss with me any questions that you might have about the use of secondary
material.
4
As a word to the wise, read your paper out loud to yourself, asking yourself
whether you would say what you have written. Don’t write just as you speak, but be sure
that you would say what you write. As you write, imagine that you are going to present
your paper as a speech. Picture your audience: first and foremost, other students! Make
sure that every sentence is clear and precise so that you can go on.
Note that late papers will be penalized one letter grade per day that they are late.
(So a paper that would have been an A will be a B if it is late by a day, a C if it is late by
two days, etc.) Again, due allowance will be made for reasonable excuses. You may also
request extensions if need be. I urge you to take advantage of my office hours, listed
above, in order to discuss the course generally and the paper in particular.
Exams
There will be three exams, each worth 13 percent of the final grade. The exams
will consist of short-answer questions on our readings and discussions. Should you have a
documented need for extra time, please tell me in advance.
Co-curricular events and supplementary readings
There are two final requirements: first, that you attend and write a report on one
co-curricular event over the semester; second, that you read and write a report on three
supplementary readings.
There are five co-curricular events to choose from, all listed in the schedule.
There are twenty-one supplementary readings, likewise listed. One more co-curricular
event is likely.
For the co-curricular event, write me, within one week of the event, a twoparagraph email 1) describing the event (just the facts) and then 2) reflecting
substantively on it. For each supplementary reading, write me, within two weeks of
where the reading falls in the syllabus, another two-paragraph email 1) summarizing the
reading (just the facts) and then 2) reflecting substantively on it, in part by connecting it
to our assigned readings or class discussion.
The co-curricular event report counts for 3 percent of the final grade, and the
three supplementary reading reports 1 percent each for 3 as well.
In sum:
Attendance/participation
Two papers
Three exams
Three supplementary readings
One co-curricular event
5
= 15 percent
= 40 percent (20 each)
= 39 percent (13 each)
= 3 percent (1 each)
= 3 percent
= 100
Academic integrity
To quote (with a few edits) from the Student Handbook (76-77):
In order for faculty members to perform their duty of fostering and
accurately evaluating the individual academic progress of each student, they need
to assume that laboratory reports, examinations, essays, themes, term papers, and
similar requirements submitted for credit as a part of a course or in fulfillment of
a College requirement are the original works of the student. Put simply, a
violation of academic integrity is an action where a student tries to violate this
assumption of the faculty member. Therefore, students shall not knowingly
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
receive or attempt to receive non-authorized assistance in the preparation
of any work (when direct quotations are used, they are to be properly
cited, and when the ideas of another are incorporated into a paper or
paraphrased, they are to be appropriately acknowledged by citation);
sell, give, lend, or otherwise furnish, or attempt to sell, give, lend, or
otherwise furnish unauthorized assistance to another in such preparation of
any work;
take or attempt to take, steal, or otherwise procure in an unauthorized
manner any material pertaining to the conduct of a class, including tests,
examinations, grade change forms, grade reports, roll books, or reports,
etc.;
sell, give, lend, or otherwise furnish to any unauthorized person any
illicitly obtained material that is known to contain questions or answers to
any examination scheduled to be given at some subsequent date or time
offered by the College;
submit the same work for more than one course unless the faculty member
to whom the work is being submitted has given their prior consent;
possess or use, without authorization of the instructor, copies of tests,
answer sheets, books, notes, calculators, computers, cheat sheets, or
similar means that could interfere with the fair, accurate testing or
evaluation of a student;
obtain, without authorization of the instructor, answers from another
student’s exam, quiz, computer, or paper; and
provide false information to an instructor or College official for the
purpose of misrepresenting an activity outside of class (reports on field
experiences, internships, etc.), or improperly seeking special consideration
or privilege (excused absences, postponement of an exam or due date of
papers or project, etc.).
Accommodations for students with disabilities
All students who have a documented learning or physical disability are
encouraged to schedule an appointment with the instructor during the first week of class
to discuss any needed accommodations.
6
Required texts
William H. Shaw and Vincent Barry, Moral Issues in Business, 12th ed. (Wadsworth,
2013, ISBN 978-1-111-83742-6), and material on Moodle
Schedule (which will likely be revised as we proceed)
Week 1: The nature of morality and the vocation of business
8/25 Introduction
8/27 Shaw, Moral Issues in Business, 3-9, 22-27
8/29 Nicholas Kristof, “A Battle with the Brewers,” New York Times, May 6,
2012 (on Moodle)
Week 2: The vocation of business
9/1
LABOR DAY; NO CLASS
9/3
Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase
Its Profits,” New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970 (on Moodle)
9/5
Friedman, continued
SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS: #1 James Surowiecki, “Companies with Benefits,”
The New Yorker, August 4, 2014; #2 Eduardo Porter, “Motivating Corporations To Do
Good,” New York Times, July 15, 2014 (on Moodle)
CO-CURRICULAR EVENTS #1 AND #2: Common Good discussion with Dr. Teresa
Ghilarducci, Professor and Chair of the Economics Department, Director of the Schwartz
Center for Economic Policy Analysis, New School for Social Research, Wednesday,
September 3, 12:00 p.m., site TBD; “Bread, Roses, and Rest: Securing Meaningful
Retirement for All,” 2014 Labor Day Lecture and Barbara Sabol Memorial Lecture,
Wednesday, September 3, 4:00 p.m., Burke Auditorium, McGowan School of Business
Week 3: The vocation of business, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics
9/8
Shaw, Moral Issues, 59-64
9/10 Michael J. Sandel, “How Markets Crowd Out Morals,” Boston Review,
May/June 2012, 1-9 (on Moodle)
9/12 Elizabeth Anderson, “For-Profit Corruption,” Boston Review, May/June
2012, 1-2 (on Moodle)
SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS: #3 Sarah Stillman, “Taken,” The New Yorker, August
12, 2013; #4 Rachel Aviv, “Wrong Answer,” The New Yorker, July 21, 2014; #5 David
L. Kirp, “Teaching Is Not a Business,” New York Times, August 16, 2014 (on Moodle)
7
Week 4: The vocation of business and deontology
9/15 Shaw, Moral Issues, 65-71
9/17 Review
9/19 CONFERENCE ON “THE IDEA OF A CATHOLIC COLLEGE”; NO
CLASS
SUPPLEMENTARY READING: #6 Ian Johnson and Cao Li, “China Experiences a
Booming Underground Market in Surrogate Motherhood,” New York Times, August 6,
2014 (on Moodle)
CO-CURRICULAR EVENT #3: Dr. Gregory Bassham, Professor of Philosophy, King’s
College, “A Living Constitution,” 2014 Constitution Day Lecture, Wednesday,
September 17, 3:30 p.m., Burke Auditorium, McGowan School of Business
Week 5: The vocation of business and theories of justice
9/22 Exam #1
9/24 Shaw, Moral Issues, 113-119
9/26 Michael Finkel, “This Little Kidney Went to Market,” New York Times
Magazine, May 27, 2001, and Matt Welch, “How Morals Crowd Out Markets,”
Boston Review, May/June 2012, 1-2 (on Moodle)
SUPPLEMENTARY READING: #7 Kevin Sack, “Transplant Brokers in Israel Lure
Desperate Kidney Patients to Costa Rica” together with “A Clash of Religion and
Bioethics Complicates Organ Donation in Israel,” New York Times, August 17, 2014 (on
Moodle)
Week 6: The vocation of business and theories of justice
9/29 Debra Satz, “The Moral Limits of Markets: The Case of Human Kidneys,”
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108 (2008): 269-271 and 274-278 (on
Moodle)
10/1 Shaw, Moral Issues, 119-127
10/3 National Geographic’s “A Way Forward: Facing Climate Change” and N.
Gregory Mankiw, “A Carbon Tax That America Could Live With,” New York
Times, August 13, 2014 (on Moodle)
SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS: #8 Mark Bittman, “The True Cost of a Burger,” New
York Times, July 15, 2014; #9 Sally Satel, “Why People Don’t Donate Their Kidneys,”
New York Times, May 3, 2014; #10 “Room for Debate: How Can the U.S. Stop Corporate
Tax Flight?” New York Times, July 21, 2014 together with Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Tax
Burden in U.S. Not as Heavy as It Looks, Report Says,” New York Times, August 19,
2014; #11 Henry Paulson, “The Coming Climate Crash,” New York Times, June 21, 2014
(on Moodle)
8
CO-CURRICULAR EVENTS #4 AND #5: Common Good discussion with Mollie
Wilson O’Reilly, Associate Editor, Commonweal magazine, Thursday, October 2, 12:30
p.m., site TBD; “A Poor Church for the Poor: Pope Francis and the Future of
Catholicism,” 2014 Feast of Saint Francis Lecture, Thursday, October 2, 4:00 p.m.,
Burke Auditorium, McGowan School of Business
ALSO OF NOTE: Study Abroad Fair, Wednesday October 1, 2014, 10:00 a.m.-2:30
p.m., Sheehy-Farmer Campus Center
Paper #1 assigned
Week 7: Capitalism and corporate social responsibility, revisited
10/6 Shaw, Moral Issues, 149-156, 167-172, 200-212, and 220-221
10/8 William Byron, “Ten Building Blocks of Catholic Social Teaching,”
America, October 31, 1998, and Andrew Abela and Joseph Capizzi, ed., A
Catechism for Business (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press,
2014), questions 1-2, pp. 1-6, and questions 28-30, 34-35, pp. 37-39, 41-43 (on
Moodle)
10/10 FALL BREAK; NO CLASS
SUPPLEMENTARY READING: #12 Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, sections 50-60
and 186-216 (on Moodle)
Paper #1 due
Week 8: Capitalism and corporate social responsibility, revisited
10/13 Byron and Abela, continued
10/15 Tobey Scharding, “Imprudence and Immorality: Lehman Brothers’
Investment Strategy 2000-2007 and the Ethics of Risk,” 1-24 (on Moodle)
10/17 Scharding, continued
SUPPLEMENTARY READING: #13 John Cassidy, “What Has Changed Since Lehman
Failed?” The New Yorker, August 28, 2013 (on Moodle)
Week 9: Capitalism and corporate social responsibility, revisited
10/20 Julfikar Ali Manik and Jim Yardley, “Building Collapse in Bangladesh
Leaves Scores Dead,” New York Times, April 24, 2013; Steven Greenhouse,
“Some Retailers Rethink Role in Bangladesh,” New York Times, May 1, 2013 (on
Moodle)
10/22 Vincent Miller, “Slavery and Commodity Chains: Fighting the
Globalization of Indifference,” America, January 2, 2014; National Public Radio’s
“Planet Money Makes a T-Shirt”; and “How Many Slaves Work for You?” (on
Moodle)
10/24 Ian Maitland, “In Defense of International Sweatshops,” in Shaw, Moral
9
Issues, 186-194
SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS: #14 “Room for Debate: When Does Corporate Social
Responsibility Mean Abandoning Ship?” New York Times, May 2, 2013; #15 Abela and
Capizzi, A Catechism for Business, questions 37-44, pp. 45-57; #16 Verité’s “Forced
Labor Commodity Atlas” together with Charles Clark, “Modern Slavery, Ancient
Exploitation” (on Moodle)
Week 10: Capitalism and corporate social responsibility, revisited
10/27 Maitland, continued
10/29 Review
10/31 Exam #2
Week 11: Product safety and pricing
11/3 Shaw, Moral Issues, 260-278, and Cicero, “The Famine at Rhodes,” in De
officiis, bk. 3, xi-xii (on Moodle)
11/5 Shaw, Moral Issues, case 6.3, 297-298, and Andrew Martin, “For
Buckyball Toys, Child Safety is a Growing Issue,” New York Times, August 17,
2012 (on Moodle)
11/7 Shaw and Martin, continued
SUPPLEMENTARY READING: #17 Rebecca Ruiz and Danielle Ivory, “Documents
Show General Motors Kept Silent on Fatal Crashes,” New York Times, July 15, 2014 (on
Moodle)
Week 12: Hiring, firing, and unions
11/10 Shaw, Moral Issues, 374-376, 387-389 and cases 8.1-8.2, 402-404
11/12 Shaw, continued
11/14 Shaw, Moral Issues, 393-400; Ben Strauss and Steve Eder, “College
Players Granted Right To Form Union,” New York Times, March 26, 2014;
“Room for Debate: Scholars, Players, and Union Members,” New York Times,
March 27, 2014 (on Moodle)
SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS: #18 Joe Nocera, “Unionized College Athletes,” New
York Times, January 31, 2014 together with Patrick Harker, “Student Athletes Shouldn’t
Unionize,” New York Times, April 1, 2014; #19 Ben Strauss, “At Northwestern, A Blitz
To Defeat an Effort To Unionize,” New York Times, April 23, 2014 (on Moodle)
Paper #2 assigned
Week 13: Loyalty and conflicts of interest
11/17 “Room for Debate,” continued
10
11/19 Shaw, Moral Issues, 485-495 and case 10.1, 511
11/21 Jon Corvino, “Loyalty in Business?” Journal of Business Ethics 41
(2002): 179-185 (on Moodle)
Paper #2 due
Week 14: Bribes, kickbacks, and gifts
11/24 Shaw, Moral Issues, 495-500
THANKSGIVING BREAK
Week 15: Whistleblowing and moral obligation
12/1 Shaw, Moral Issues, 500-510; Barton Gellman, “Edward Snowden, after
Months of NSA Revelations, Says His Mission’s Accomplished,” Washington
Post, December 23, 2013; “Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower,” New York Times,
January 1, 2014 (on Moodle)
12/3 Gellman, continued
12/5 Review
SUPPLEMENTARY READING: #20 David Brooks, “The Solitary Leaker,” New York
Times, June 10, 2013; #21 Mark Mazzetti, “Burglars Who Took on F.B.I. Abandon
Shadows,” New York Times, January 7, 2014 (on Moodle)
Final exam (exam #3)
11
Method for discussion of case studies
1) What are the relevant facts of the case? Just the facts; no analysis, no argumentation,
etc. List.
2) What are the ethical problems, challenges, questions to consider? Not questions of
fact; instead, a) questions of responsibilities and obligations, b) questions of what would
be right, what wrong, what good, what bad;1 c) questions about what a virtuous person
would do, which is to say what a kind, thoughtful, courageous, charitable, generous,
gentle, tender, wise, etc. person would do (see the list of virtues at The Virtues Project,
http://www.virtuesproject.com/virtuesdef.html.) List again, considering a), b), and c)
separately.
3) What are different courses of action that might be taken? Only those courses that
appear ethically defensible—that appear permissible (that is, nothing stands in the way)
or justified (that is, there is, moreover, positive moral reason to go ahead). List.
4) What is the best or most ethical choice among the different possibilities? What reasons
recommend this choice over the others? Discuss/argue, pushing toward basic claims or
principles.
1
Note that an action may be “right” in two senses: action-guiding and all-things-considered. We might call
an action right because it is the best course of action available in a given situation. (This is the actionguiding sense.) Still, we may not want to praise this action; we might even have reason to regret that the
person in question has put himself in the situation where he has to act one way or the other. (Say the person
has promised to marry two women and has to decide what to do next.) We might also call an action right
because we want to commend it—because it is the action that a virtuous person would take. (This is the allthings-considered sense.)
12